Archive for December, 2009

Under the Malaysian Constitution there is a distinction between “Citizen” and “Malay.” This distinction is provided for under Article 160 (2) in respect of the interpretation of certain expressions used in the constitution.

“Citizen” means a citizen of the Federation. And “Malay” means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to the Malay custom and …..”

Further the constitution goes on to provide for the “special privileges” and other entitlements under Article 153 and 89 in respect of Malay reservations.

But on an in depth study of the constitution and even if one were to stretch ones imagination to the vertical heights of our picture-making faculty of the mind we will not be able to find the origin of the term “ Bumiputra” in the constitution.

So, if this term “Bumiputra” has not been constitutionally classified or provided for in the constitution, then it does not have any legal standing and consequently its usage and significance has only casual connotation. Therefore the word “Bumiputra” is only useful as a political tool

If that is the case, how and for what purpose was this casual term coined and effectually put into use.

From 1957 till 1963 this nation was known as Malaya. Then, in 1963 Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaya and a new federation was created as it is now known as Malaysia.

In 1965 when Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore became a pain in the neck and since he represented a Chinese majority from the island, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia.

There is also a commonly held theory that Sabah and Sarawak were brought into the federation by the Malay leaders so that they could retain a Malay majority. And in so thinking, Singapore was kicked out.

This was a strategy which was effectively deployed by the Malay ruling class to protect themselves from any future challenges that may be forth coming from the Chinese section of the society with their vested interest.

At the outset when the term Bumiputra was coined there was a lot of debate when Singapore was a member state of Malaysia and participated in our Parliament. Lee Kuan Yew in his election campaign called for a “Malaysian Malaysia.”

However, it is interesting to note, that just after Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, there was a parliamentary debate in November of 1965 where this issue of the term Bumiputra was raised, again.

The current generation would find it amusing or may have to put on your thinking cap and decide as to what sort of hypocrites you have at the current stage, in government.

You have to take cognizance of the fact that from now on and into the future that we are the masters of our faith and our destiny and not the politicians. Why is it to be so?

Well, the good old Tunku gave a reply to the question which was an aimless verbose of an answer, which means that he said so in more words than was needed.

The Tunku said “the term Bumiputra has no legal meaning except in so far as to denote the natives of the mainland of Malaya and the natives of the Borneo States and it shall include those Chinese and Indians who have been born here for several generations to the natives of Malaysia.”

Now, can you see what was the “subjective intent” of the Prime Minister of Malaysia in 1965 who was the key founding father of the independence of Malaya. (You can go and check the Hansard for Tunku’s remarks.)

Subsequent, to the remarks made by the Tunku in parliament, the Tunku came under pressure to accept only one definition of the term Bumiputra. It was to be that the Chinese and Indians of either peninsula or East Malaysia would not be qualified to be termed as Bumiputra.

For all intent and purpose the British and our founding fathers were fully aware that the Chinese and the Indians had been in Malaya for well over a 100 years before our founding fathers decided to negotiate for the independence of Malaya.

That may have been the reason why Onn Jaafar in 1950 proposed that the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) should open the party’s membership to non Malays. And when the UMNO members rejected Onn’s proposal, he resigned as the president and member of UMNO.

There is one other feature which should not be overlooked, that is, the word “race” is not a Malayan Concept. The British introduced it because of the “census” requirements. This was owing to the fact that there was a constant flow and an uneven nature of immigration from different parts of China, India, Araiba, the Netherlands East Indies, Siam, Cambodia, Tunqueen and Sambas and supplemented by the arrivals of the Javanese, Bugis and other migrants from the Indonesian archipelago.

There are scholars who have termed it as a “Western racial concept” and on the other hand the “colonial castes” of the various nationalities of the ( British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and others) worked together to forge the idea of “White superiority.”

This is what Rudyard Kipling called the “Great Game”—playing of, in other words, “their” natives, rebellions against one another and, above and beyond this, all priding themselves, to competition with one another, on their particular humaneness, by projecting the image of racism on to the colonial practices of their rivals.

Now after 52 years of attaining our independence our government is still shamelessly dividing us on racial lines to attain their political objectives. The power is in our hands as the voters to bring about a change that this nation is for all of us and we are Malaysian.

We have to commit ourselves to this “motto” that “We are the masters of our faith and destiny” and as Rudyard Kipling said “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind” and we can indeed change our government that will be committed to economic growth and competitiveness rather than wasting its efforts on social redistribution.

When we take a look at the various soap operas as played out by the Barisan National (BN) politicians in the recent past, on the ethnic differences in our nation, we wonder as to what has happened to the spirit of nationalism after 52 years of our nation having had envisioned our Independence.

Generally speaking or thinking out loud, our founding fathers, that is, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tan Cheng Lock and V.T. Sambanthan must have faced ethnic hostility and suspicion when they first embarked on the expedition to unite the various communities to maintain a unified front and to bargain with their colonial masters to pave the way for Independence.

At that stage they must have realized that the British had by their policies kept the various communities apart and such policies had sowed the seeds of distrust and enmity between the ethnic Malays and the ethnic Chinese and Indians.

As such, as man is a gregarious being, he is by nature able to live with his fellows in harmony. In this spirit our founding fathers must have drawn up their conditions for attaining Independence. It would have been in the context of their shared experiences of the prevailing policies of the British. They must have made compromises and come to a consensus so as to present a united front, to attain Independence.

Based on historical records it would be political correct to assert that the British had demonstrated their colonial power in the form of their colonized culture. This was because they kept the various ethnic groups in servitude. The British forged the idea of “White” superiority.

The British segregated the ethnic Malays from the other communities instead of encouraging their full integration into a modern society. On the other hand the ethnic Chinese were in mining zones or commercial agricultural activity and the ethnic Indians were in the European-owned rubber estates.

That is why Emerson, Rupert (1970) {1937} Malaysia: A Study of Direct and Indirect Rule, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, was one of the strongest critics of British policies during the economic depression, viewing them as excellent opportunities for the maxim of “divide and rule.”

During their period of rule the British had acquired and opened up the ports of Singapore, Malacca and Penang. Then after the Second World War they wanted to do away with the pre-war administrative structures of the ten government units consisting of the federated Malay states of Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negri Sembilan and the unfederated Malay states of Johore, Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu and the Straits Settlements comprising of Singapore, Malacca and Penang.

The British wanted to create a centrally controlled state with Singapore as a separate entity. They introduced the Malayan Union Agreement (MUA). The sultans signed away the sovereignty of the Malay states. However the British underestimated the opposition of the ethnic Malay masses.

When the ethnic Malays realized how powerless their sultans were in protecting their rights, status and privileges and as well as maintaining their identity as a race, they reacted swiftly by re-establishing their pre-war state associations and opposed the British and their sultans for signing away the sovereignty of the Malay states.

It has to be noted that, before the war, the British had a pro-Malay policy and it had alienated the non-Malays. But after the Malayan Union Agreement it alienated the Malays by abolishing their rights and by giving unrestricted citizenship rights to the non-Malays. This MUA sowed the seeds of enmity and distrust between the Malays and the non-Malays.

In this ensuing struggle the sultans caved in first. Why?

The sultan of Kedah and Perak objected to the MUA. They were forced to sign the MUA. The other sultans signed because they were merely thinking of their own self-interest or because they had just ascended to their thrones and needed the British confirmation to remain as sultans.

Hence the ethnic Malays and the non-ethnic Malays saw through the deviousness of the policies of the British. A joint opposition was mounted. They put forward a proposal that the MUA be replaced by the People’s Constitutional Proposal (PCP). It should be noted that the “Melayu” nationality that was being proposed did not carry any religious connotations.

The non-ethnic Malays had all along been used to seeing themselves as Malayans, accepted the term melayu as a nationality and wanted the ethnic Malays to accept it and become Malayan too.

The PCP demanded that a fully-elected federal legislative assembly be elected. The framers argued that only a government elected by and responsible to the people would be able to look into the welfare of the people.

Under the Alliance leadership it was decided that in exchange, the non-ethnic Malays will get liberal citizenship requirements, the ethnic Malays would continue with the Malay privileges as provided under the Federation of Malaya Agreement (FMA) such as, Malay reservation land, operation of quotas within the public services, quotas for licenses and permits for certain business and quotas for public scholarship and educational grants will continue.

These privileges were to be incorporated into the provision of Article 157(which is now Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.) The intention of the Alliance and the Reid commission was that Article 153 relating to special privileges should be transitional and the position of the ethnic Malays should be reviewed from time to time, and a “White Paper” was to be tabled in the federal legislative meeting which should include a statement that:

“ It is considered in the interest of the country and in the interest of the Malays themselves that the provisions of Article 157 should be reviewed from time to time.”

Apart from the above the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) raised strong objections on Article 3 where Islam was to be the official religion of the federation. The Tunku said that he was under pressure as it was important psychologically to the Malays.

The United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) assured that Islam was intended to have only symbolic significance and for ceremonial purpose only and Article 11 provides for the rights of the non-Malays and guarantees the citizen the right to profess, practice and propagate their religion and that the federation would be a “secular state.”

Independence was granted on 31st. August 1957. Up to 1969 the Alliance claimed that it was the only component of the parties that was capable of resolving communal claims. Then, came other parties outside the Alliance, such as the Democratic Action Party (DAP), the Gerakan and Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS).

In May 1969 we saw the riots. With that a state of emergency was declared. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced. Then along the way Mahathir wrote the book entitled the “Malay dilemma.” To Mahathir “Race” had everything to do with social difference in Malaysia and the inferior economic status of the ethnic Malays.

Mahathir helmed the nation for 22 years from 1981 to 2003. To him and many of his generation of nationalists, they held an understanding that Malay culture and ethnic identity was constitutive of the nation. This flawed understanding was in direct contrast to a more politically inclusive nationalism.

However in the March 2008 general elections with the increasingly urbanized and upwardly mobile of the Malay middle class and with the support of the ethnic Chinese and Indians the notion of Malay supremacy and nationalism was shattered. The barriers of racialism which were institutionalized over the last 30 years are now slowly being dismantled.

Whilst the people in general have had a common nationalist consciousness and have intermingled freely in the marketplace and workplace, it appears that the unschooled politicians from UMNO that evdeavoure to create and play up the racial card to gain political mileage.

With the current stage of political maturation, inter-racial marriages and a recognition that Malay and Malaysian nationalism are linked and that all the citizens are Malaysian nationalist the word “race” may hopefully in the passage of time become “defunct.”

There will be light at the end of the tunnel in 2013 with the current “common policy platform.” Of the Pakatan Rakyat. May be, by that time like Massim d’Azeglio who said after Italy had been politically unified: “We have made Italy, now we have to make Italians.” So too, we the people should be able to say “ We have Malaysia, now we are all Malaysians.”

The matter that was before the Court of Appeal was purely over a matter of the interpretation of the provisions of Section 30 (3) (a) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694). The section inter alia states:

“ A person to whom an order has been given shall … attend in accordance with the terms of the order to be examined, and shall continue to attend from day to day where so directed until the examination is completed.”

The appeal arose from the decision of the High Court, where Justice Mohamad Ariff Md. Yusof’s made a declaration that witnesses could only be questioned by the commission from 8.30am to 5.30pm on each day.

As much as there are stacks and stacks of statutes being passed by Parliament, the role of the lawyers is to advice their clients as to what the provisions of a statute mean, as and when an issue arises.

We know that the principal object of the parliamentary draftsman or women is to adopt a method of drafting of legislation in order to achieve certainty. But then being human the conceived certainty could bring about obscurity and could sometimes even lead to absurdity.

That is why books have been written upon the interpretation of statutes. The Maxims referred to in the books are called “Rules of Construction.” No doubt each side of the divide would find and refer to a maxim or rule to counteract each other before a court, makes a just decision.

Be that as it may, in the final analysis the task of the lawyers who are before the court and of the judges is beyond doubt. It is to find the intention of Parliament and the meaning of the words used in a statute.

It was in this premise that the judge of the High Court inquired into the mischief which gave rise to the formulation of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act (MACC) and went on to determine the evil that the Act sought to remedy.

The judge found that the “Principal Object” of the Act was “to promote the integrity and accountability of public and private sector administration …. and to educate public authorities, public officials and members of the public about corruption and its detrimental effects…by constituting an independent and accountable anti-corruption body.”

It was in this context that the High Court judge adopted a construction to be given to the intention of Parliament and gave the words used in the Act, that is,

“and shall continue to attend from day to day where so directed until the examination is completed” its plain an ordinary meaning.

It must be noted that Justice Mohamad Ariff Md. Yusof of the High Court did not in anyway pull the language of the draftsmen or women and of Parliament and tear it up to pieces and make nonsense of it.

Neither did the Judge make any alteration to the material upon which it was woven. All that the Judge did was to adopt a purposive approach to solve the question that was posed on the meaning of “and shall continue to attend from day to day” as used in the Act.

The Judge may have taken cognisence of the meaning of the word “day”. The Little Oxford Dictionary states that Day means: “time during which sun is above horizon, daylight, part of day allotted for work…” and would have found that the language used be the draftsmen or women, of “day to day” has brought forth obscurity and based on the claim of the MACC it was an absurdity as it would not have been the intention of Parliament. But then he found that the word “continue to attend” had a purpose.

The Judge decided to exercise his inherent powers and ironed out the creases of the obscurity and decided that “day to day” could not be interpreted as “day in and day out” and instead of filling in the gaps and making sense of the obscurity and opening up the intention of Parliament to destructive analysis, he drew a pragmatic conclusion based on Article 5 of the Federal Constitution which relates to the “liberty of a citizen” and made a declaration that “day to day” means 8.30am to 5.30pm each day.

Now here arises the amusing part of the basis of the appeal court’s decision which has taken cognizance of the arguments put forth by the Senior Federal Counsel Amarjeet Singh who represented the MACC..

Justice Hasan Lah said “that in the first part, there is no time element involved while there is nothing in the second part of the Section to restrict examination hours to only normal working hours.” But he did not clarify what is “normal” working hours.

Justice Hasan Lah and his fellow judges by setting aside the Declaration of the High Court have grossly overlooked the constitutional rights of a citizen to his personal liberty. The appeal court has made no attempt to find out the intention of Parliament. It has not inquired into the mischief that gave rise to the formulation of the MACC Act. It made no effort to see the evil that Parliament sought to remedy. It miserably failed to conceive the obscurity of the draftsmen or women’s language which was indeed an absurdity.

Further the keystone to the rule of law is the independence of the judges. In order for there to be certainty in justice, the rule of law and its structure, it depends on independent judges. Therefore independent and upright judges must decide on controversies not by adopting the literal approach but use the purposive approach to solve the question before them.

So if every “Declaration” granted by the High Court is going to be set aside by the Court of Appeal on frivolous grounds, then, how and when would the people be governed by established standing laws?

To our mind there will never be any legislation which can be drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. If that is the case such laws will be so complicated and would become unintelligible and would be self-defeating.

That is why Parliament has expounded and promulgated legislation with clear principles and in simple and clear language.

But in the situation which we have before us, we have the High Court Judge who has given a declaration as to what the provision of the law means and three Court of Appeal Judges with three heads put into one have made nonsense of the law, which defies logic and the intention of Parliament.

All you Judges, lawyers and the common people read and comprehend the language written in the law. The perception and understanding of the language have to be generally in accord with common sense and the appreciation of the intent and purpose of the message in the law.

And as far as the decision of the Court of Appeal to interpret “day to day” as not involving the element of time, it appears that the three Judges do not understand the English language.

The simple element is that there is a distinction between “day” and “night”. Night according to the Little Oxford Dictionary means: “time from sunset to sunrise (period of) darkness; nightfall; evening….”

Therefore, the Court of Appeal Judges have not administered and applied the law as it stands. The judges have filled up the gaps from “day to day” and made it “day in and day out” and have done so knowingly. As such the Appeal Court Judges are themselves guilty of a misuse of their powers.

It is now clear and apparent that the Judges are appointed in practice on the advice of the Prime Minister. So, some of them, do not understand what independent judge means. They just show their own extreme political colour. And that is why the people have lost faith in the judiciary. The judges at the Court of Appeal cannot be trusted. They do not know the meaning of leadership and of life.

In the early days when the New Economic Policy (NEP) was implemented the rumblings of the people not categories as Malays were a closed door affair. The prevailing issues relating to political inequality were in silence, closely examined by the ethnic Chinese and Indian business communities as well academics and the general populace of these communities.

At the outset of the introduction of the NEP the other communities did recognize that there did exist, some differentiation in the capability and the ability of the ethnic Malays. However, based on their central ethical tenets of philosophy, they consented to genuinely give the Malays a helping hand. The main aim was to reduce poverty and to raise their corporate ownership from 1.5% in 1969 to 30% by 1990

As time progressed there arose other impositions, such as, issues relating the use of language, religion, education, employment and racially concocted regulations being imposed on the way business was to be conducted. As the framers of the NEP assured the other ethnic community leaders that the policy was for a period of 20 years the other communities adopted the concept of: do unto others as you would have others do unto you, approach.

When 1990 came along the leaders of the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) issued a different variant to the NEP. They termed the period between 1970 and 1990 was the “First Outline Perspective Plan” (OPP) and introduced a second OPP for 1991 to 2000 and subsequently a third OPP for 2001 to 2010.

The political oratory of the UMNO leaders can at best be described as a “semantic paradox.” By this it means that “semantic” stands for language and “paradox” stands for ambiguity. So the political oratory became ambiguous. It smacked of gross discrimination of the ethic Chinese and Indians enshrined rights under the Federal Constitution.

Further apart from grossly violating the Federal Constitution, it was opened up to destructive analysis and experiential examination. This situation gave rise to the conflicting demands made by the purported minority against the ethnic Malays. The purported minority challenged their oppression.

What the ethnic Malays failed to realize was the fact that when the other community leaders who represented the non-Malays had consented to give a helping hand to the ethnic Malays, they had made concessions which were premised on their psychological perception.

They may have been able to utilize their experience in the field of human endeavour and recognize the ability for differentiation in the performance of different ethnic groups. After all this line of thought is the very base of logic and abstract thought.

Whatever may have been their thoughts, one thing is for certain, science has no knowledge of racism. It does not exist. So it would also be in the field of social science.

Why would this be so?

Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution eloquently asserts that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law” and Article 8 (1) states “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”

As the Federal Constitution provides for the inalienable rights to liberty and equality, how and on what basis does privilege or affirmative action, arise. This must be pure nonsense.

Under our Constitution none of the citizens would be premised to be of an inferior status. There are, lots of historical material that have covered the issues of class disenfranchisement, personal and social development, sociopolitical discrimination and the issue of the liberation movements.

There are also scientific studies that have established the aspects of human evolution. No doubt we as individuals based on our genetic stock and with our acquired knowledge would wrestle with such conclusions made in the field of science.

In this day and age of civility it is now becoming a hallmark of life that racism is not fashionable the world over. So much so that in England, Wales and Scotland since 1993 the football association has launched a campaign known as “Lets Kick Racism out of Football” (LKROOF).

If the British have gone that far ahead in life to kick of racism even in sports, it would be justified to state that the acts and conduct of the UMNO leaders clearly demonstrates that they are infected with a prolonged infantile immaturity syndrome.

The recommendation is that they enlist for an adult education course and endeavour to acquire and increase their knowledge of how to develop solidarity, tolerance and better understanding amongst the diverse groups of people in this nation of ours.

These UMNO leaders should dismantle all the existing unethical barriers they have set up over the last 40 years or more years and gain a better understanding of our different cultures, religions, social, ethical and educational backgrounds so as to develop their creative skills when representing the views of their communities.

Therefore, all politicians and the people of this nation should declare the word “RACE” to be defunct.

There is a surfeit of writings on the unconscionable method that was adopted to neutralize Altantua in the year of 2006. The manner in which the acts were executed can at best be described by the use of the powers of our imagination as giving us an image of some form of cave man having had with the tacit approval of the Ministry of Defence secured C4 explosives and effectively used it as an experiment on an extremely vulnerable human being.

We claim to live in modern times. With the various types of new technologies being used by the people of this nation, it would appear that we live in an age of ongoing discovery.

Therefore by the way in which we live we have indeed come a long way from Charles Darwin’s 1859 seminal work “On the Origin of Species”. This was a new theory of evolution by natural selection put forward to a wide audience. This theory of evolution was overwhelmingly accepted by the scientist community.

The reader my wonder as to what is the relevance of the theory of evolution to the murder of Altantua.

The relevance is that the theory of evolution is premised on the study of the change in the “genetic material” of a population of organisms through successive generations. It is a study of biology.

Although the changes in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the “emergence of new species.”

The reader can easily recall Mahathir a pseudo- Malay who authored a book entitled “ The Malay Dilemma” which postulated that the Malays are the definitive people of Malaysia. Being a medical doctor he argued that the Malays needed “affirmative action” to overcome the “deficiencies in their genetic stock.”

So, since the great medical doctor Mahathir has himself penned it in his book, that the Malays have a deficiency in their genetic stock there must be some truth to the matter. So would it be wrong to conclude that the people implicated in the murder of Altantua have a “deficiency in their genetic stock” in this day and age of our modern living?

There answer should be in the positive.

Now, lets look at the chronology of events that led to the murder of Altantua which is clearly recorded in Sirul’s cautioned statement to the police.

Having had read the cautioned statement, it would be appropriate to now deal with PI Bala’s explosive revelations. Whether or not there is some element of substance in what he has stated in the video recordings made in the presence of three Malaysian prominent lawyers, is an ethical choice that one has to make. This is in respect of why he made the second Statutory Declaration to withdraw the first Statutory Declaration.

Now, having had read Sirul’s cautioned statement to the police and then having had watched and listened to the video recording, one can draw a disconcerted conclusion.

It will be noticed that under Sirul’s cautioned statement, one may implicitly infer that Najib has knowledge of the murder of Altantua. And based on Bala’s revelation in the video recording, read together with Sirul’s cautioned statement, the disappearance of Bala from Malaysia, his claim that he was paid RM750,000.00 of the RM5 Million offered of which he claims that he can produce documentary evidence, why have the Inspector General of the Police(IGP) and the Attorney General(AG) not acted.

Apart from the above facts, Bala has implicated Najib, Rosmah, Nazrim, Deepak, Suresh and the lawyer Arunampalam. Not a single soul has rebutted the allegations made by Bala in his revelations to the three prominent lawyers about the falsity and the circumstances under which he was compelled to execute the second Statutory Declaration. Would it not mean that complete “silence” means, that the named people tacitly consent that the revelations of Bala are true.
The facts are clear. One of the Statutory Declaration is false. Section 191 of the Penal Code (Act 574) states:

“Whoever, being legally bound by an oath, or by any express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.”

Why has there been no prosecution or charge preferred under Section 200 of the Penal Code(PC) (Act 574)?

Before we proceed to deliberate on Section 200 of the PC let us first determine as to whether an offence has been committed.

Well, Bala was hired by Abdul Razak Baginda(ARB). ARB was charged for abetting in the murder and was acquitted and discharged without his defence being called. Bala has some degree of knowledge of what transpired before the actual murder.

Bala is an ex-special branch police officer. He is a man of modest means. Why did he have to leave the country immediately after making the 2nd. Statutory Declaration. He has taken his family with him, and they have been staying out of the country for over a year.

It is for all right minded people to draw an informed conclusion. So what is the evidence?

Based on the Rule of Evidence, it was generally developed over several centuries. To put it simply, the rule governs whether, when, how, and for what purpose, proof in a legal case is to be brought before a court for the facts to be considered.

So, when we consider Sirul;s cautioned statement to the police and take it together with the revelations of Bala, we would find that the facts fall squarely within the rules of evidence?

Any lawyer worth his salt, which includes the AG knows that generally “hearsay testimony” is inadmissible in a court of law. However, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

But in the deafening silence of all the actors on Bala’s revelations, the IGP and the AG

have ended in the refutation of the populace. These actors appear to be merely squalid and miserable addicts of power where any unschooled man with intelligence and taste would openly despise them.

Why would it be so?

The revelations of Sirul and Bala are not hearsay evidence. They are facts that exist as perceived by their senses. They are real facts based on the “best evidence rule.”

If that is the reality of the situation, then why has the AG not acted even though a police report has been lodged on Bala’s revelations of Nazim Razak and the other actors acts and conduct.

Since the AG may have a recent loss of memory, we would lend him our assistance.

(1) Except in case of complaints laid by the Public Prosecutor no Court shall take cognizance-

(b) of any offences punishable under section 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 or 228 of the Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the Public Prosecutor or when the offence is committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court on the complaint of such court.

The law is made for a purpose. It is to cure a mischief. We have the murder case of Altantua which is not going away any time soon. There are other actors who must be brought before a court of law. The power is in the hands of the AG and the IGP.

The longer the AG decides not to act we will give him a “gift” of loneliness as the AG does not seem to act in accordance with the rule of law that is well established in this nation of ours. The AG should understand that life would not progress if he allows the rule of law to be moribund.

Should the AG abrogate on his powers to act, then it is unfortunate that Reinhold Niebuhr’s statement would come to fruition, that is:

“Evil is not to be traced back to the individual but to the collective behavior of humanity.”

We hope that as all history is current we would not let it be recorded for the future where our future generations would pour scorn on our inability to right what was, unjust.

We in Malaysia are concerned about the fact that we being ethnic Chinese and Indians and the non Muslim Bumiputra people of Sabah and Sarawak have been living for the past 40 years or more in a shaky modern democracy. Sometimes we wonder as to how these scandalous racial policies were permitted to be perpetrated by the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) unabated.

There is an obvious reason as to why the term “scandalous racial policies” are used to refer to the acts and conduct of UMNO until the situation arose recently where the pot started to call the kettle black. This refers to the extremely funny skirmish between the father of Malaysia’s racism policies, that is non other than, Mahathir and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nazri.

It indeed was a hilarious national affair. It categorically and emphatically confirmed all the insinuations that have been posted by and large by anonymous bloggers on the biosphere. The skirmish put to rest the unconstitutional acts and conduct executed by UMNO which is clearly unconsciona

The first salvo came from Nazri, when he labeled Mahathir as a racist over the stand of the 84-year-old man with regard to the National Civic Bureau (BTN) courses.

The old man Mahathir shot back that UMNO is a party perkauman which is meant only for the Malays and nobody(else) can join and as such (Nazri) is in a racist party and since he is against racism he should resign from UMNO.

This whole episode was a blessing in disguise for the ethnic Chinese, Indians, and the non Muslim people of Sabah and Sarawak which was brought to the forefront by divine providence.

There seems to be something amiss here, to note as to how this racial situation of Malay supremacy was implemented and was allowed to be mismanaged for some 40 years or more.

This is owing to the fact that prior to obtaining Independence the UMNO, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) formed a body called the Alliance which was the predecessor of the Barisan National (BN).

So, when we take a leaf from what is recorded in history, the visual political landscape would provide the missing link as to how and when this 40 year joke of racism first started to rear its ugly head.

The MCA was formed on February 27, 1949 with the implicit support of the post World War 11 British Reoccupation Authority by the Kuomintang (KMT) members as an alternative to the Malayan Communist Party.

The first leaders of the MCA were KMT army leaders. Leong Yew Koh was a KMT major general. He became the Governor of Malacca. Henry H.S. Lee was a colonel in the KMT. He was Malaysia’s first Finance Minister. Lim Chong Eu was a colonel (medical) doctor in the KMT. He joined the MCA in 1952.

In 1957 we obtained our Independence. The first general election was held in 1959. Lim Chong Eu was the leader of the MCA and he demanded that the MCA be allowed to contest 40 of the 104 seats. The Tunku rejected it. There was an internal strife in the Alliance.

Lim Chong Eu and his supports resigned and stood as independents. UMNO won 51.8% of the votes which resulted in 74 out of 104 seats which was enough for a two-third majority in Parliament and the Alliance formed the government.

The relationship in the Alliance was well until its leaders decided in 1963 to make the Malay language the National Language of Malaysia. UMNO sought to reduce the reliance on the English language in government affairs. The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) backed the special rights for the Bumiputra which strengthened Islam’s position in public affairs.

The Democratic Action Party (DAP) took a strong stance against UMNO and PAS position on Islam. They made the call for a “Malaysians Malaysia”. In the meantime in 1968 the Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan) was formed. It was led by Lim Chong Eu.

Matters came to a head in 1969 general elections. The Alliance won less that half of the popular vote. The Alliance secured 66 out of 104 seats in Parliament. Most of the losses came from the MCA. The Alliance lost the States of Kalantan, Perak and Penang.

The King declared a national emergency on the advice of the government. Parliament was suspended. The National Operations Council (NOC) was led by Najib’s father Abdul Razak. Until Parliament was reconvened the NOC consisted of 7 Malays, 1 Chinese and 1 Indian. In Razak’s cabinet there were two powerful men. They were Ismail Abdul Rahman and Ghazali Shafie.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) was formulated during the NOC. Whilst Mahathir was expelled from UMNO he authored “The Malay Dilemma”. In the book Mahathir controversially argued that the Malays needed “Affirmation Action” in order to overcome deficiencies in their genetic stock. Razak, subsequently readmitted Mahathir into UMNO.

Under the NOC the NEP targeted 30% Malay share in the economy. The old civil service hiring quota of 4 Malays for every, 1 non-Malay was effectively disregarded. By 1973 98% of all new government employees were pseudo Malays. 90% of the Government scholarship for studying abroad, were awarded to Malays. Hiring quotas in the private sector were enforced. Preferential entry requirements for Malays into universities were enforced thereby reducing the entry for the other ethnic groups.

In 1976 Razak passed away. Hussein Onn became the Prime Minister. Mahathir was given the key post of the Ministry of Education. Then Hussein Onn resigned in 1980 and Mahathir became the Prime Minister.

Against this backdrop, it can be clearly seen that as from 1969 up to this date where Najib is the Prime Minister of Malaysia, he and his government have completely submerged the constitutional rights of the citizens who are non-pseudo Malays, This unconscionable acts were implemented by his father, Razak.

The non-pseudo Malay people have been subjugated to such a point that they have even lost their constitutional rights to their “freedom of speech, assembly and association, religion and equality.”

It appears that Najib is not able recognize the flaws diabolically conceived and created by his father and built upon by UMNO over the years. He fails to understand that constitutional rights have to be upheld by the government, as such rights and obligations between the populace and the government are essential for the people to live in harmony.

Najib is the President of UMNO and Malaysia’s Prime Minister. He should know the fundamental rights of any citizen cannot hang on the fancies of individuals in authority. As such, such rights can ill afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications of which UMNO has made a mockery of them for the past 40 or more years.

Having had made a mockery of our fundamental rights in Malaysia we find Najib’s statement made in Narathiwat, Thailand as reported in the Star on 10.12 2009 that is:

“As long as it is not against Islamic principles, I cannot see why the people living in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat provinces should not support the moves taken by the Thai government to restore peace.”

And this statement of Najib appears to be below the threshold of his consciousness or his mind must have been on automation where his words came out to rapidly and he was not able to consciously perceive what he was speaking.

What about you Najib subjugating our rights, is it permitted in Islam?

Najib, for all the mockery that UMNO and you have made to the ethnic Chinese, Indians and the people of Sabah and Sarawak over the last 40 years or more that statement you made gave us a revulsion on the contradictory manner in which your government endeavours to subjugate us in Malaysia of which fact you pretend to be oblivious.

In addressing this crucial issue we have to first address the all important questions that occupy our mind as citizens of Malaysia.

Are we wary of our government?

Has the government been allowed to wield a great power over determining social policies?

Has the government grossly abused the power given to it on trust?

Has the government grossly regulated and institutionalized educational and racial conflicts?

Has the government institutionalized discrimination in its employment policies in the public sector?

Has the government institutionalized racial policies on domestic and foreign investment?

Has the government planned ahead based on the reality that technological innovation was and is in a state of flux?

Has the government had the foresight and planned on how to phase out the prevailing low cost investment policies that were formulated in the mid 1970?

Has the government planned and implemented policies on how to re- model its education policies based on the on going technological changes that were being introduced in the industrial manufacturing processes?

Has the government planned and formulated incentives for on the job training of workers so that low cost investors could plan to diversify and meet the demands of bringing about structural change and increase their investment base to accommodate knowledge based workers who can be rewarded a high income?

We seek answers to the above questions. We are a democracy. We have the freedom to express our opinion. Najib has himself in the past declared that we as citizens should be curious on the workings of the government. So the above posed questions are not premised on our imagination or magical powers.

They are premised and based on the current and on going pronouncements made by our leaders in the government on the functioning of our economy and how they are endeavouring to take the nation to greater heights. Therefore these questions are premised on the basis of being constructive and it is vitally based on our perception of the current prevailing social, political and economic conditions and requirements imposed by globalization.

These questions posed are to assess and to determine the most important ingredients upon which the legitimacy and continued sustainability of the government was built upon.

The time has come for the Barisan National (BN) government and its incompetent leaders to face the reality of our current ill structured educational policies, policies of racial and employment discrimination and the racially based investment policies which have had a direct impact on the continued sustainability of our low cost manufacturing industries which are highly dependent on unskilled foreign workers.

The government cannot continue to be a hypocrite and divide its mind into two compartments. It cannot favour and have an idea of racialism in one compartment and in an undisturbed fashion commercialize its morally defunct 1Malaysia concept.

Under these circumstances we the citizens have to send to you as a government a clear and distinct message that based on our democratic practice of majority rule, you are the government of the day. It purportedly appears that you have been given the “trust” to govern.

But if you are “astute” leaders you cannot fail to be of the realization that “trust” is a complex and interpersonal construction upon which is embodied the most important ingredient for the sustainability of the BN government or any government for that matter.

However, based on the current favoured perception of the populace at large we do not “trust” the BN government and that is why you as a government may not be able to attain any or most of your expected outcomes which are premised on your ill conceived or cosmetic policies.

As much as you, Najib are endeavouring to project some form of professionalism with the assistance of your special advisers, but it is imperative that like your father Razak, your projected loyalty appears to the nation to be superficial and a mere form of commercial honesty.

This is owing to the fact that your “credibility” is highly in question. Your government has made no good policies that are worth our consideration. There is a great body of opinion which now exist in a vacuum that gives rise to “social” distrust in the affairs of your government. Almost all the established institutions of the government are characterized by corruption. Even the Judiciary who are supposed to be the last bastion for justice have not been spared. And these prevailing scenarios are not a myth but a reality. And last but not the least is your act of the rape of the Perak State assembly, which we shall never forget nor forgive.

These situations have produced the deleterious or harmful consequences for your government to continue to govern this beautiful nation of ours.

It is about time that we require and hold your government accountable and it is only appropriate that the government, give us the appropriate answers through its posting in the main stream print media and through Malaysiakini, for the questions that have been raised hereinbefore.

Never as a leader of the government should you fail to realize that truth is the radiant manifestation of reality. When we as a social community desire the truth on our governments formulated policies for the enhancement of the nation’s economic performance, it can only be construed that we have a direct desire to have a contact with a piece of the reality of our nation, as we find that the doctrines of your pronouncements on the reinvention of investment to make our nation a “high income” nation to be without imagination.

In the implementation of the apartheid policies by the United Malay National Organization (UMNO) over the last 40 years, it is amazing to note the demonstration of the maturity and pragmatism of the ethnic Chinese and Indian population of Malaysia and as to how they have stayed above the fray. The UMNO’s racial policies have currently gained live international attention. The systemic discrimination of the other ethnic groups, is apparently in gross violation of their fundamental constitutional rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

Najib, who is himself a tinted character was appointed as the Prime Minister of Malaysia in April 2009. The ringing of the bells of his involvement in the murder of Shaaribuugin Altantuyaa (SB) is still a very live issue, both nationally and internationally. Najib will never be able to find any consolation from the affliction of PI Bala’s revelations of Najib’s role in the murder of SB. He has dismissed the revelations as “frivolous.”

How could such serious revelations be frivolous?

That is why all right minded people are entitled to treat his expressed opinion as a feeble evdeavour to emancipate his mind of his guilt, of the murder SB. In the eyes of any civil society Najib’s conduct is contemptuous. It would not be wrong to have and to hold a perception that Najib will never have light in doubt and darkness.

Against the backdrop of the 40 years of implementation of the apartheid policies and with the nation being burdened with nippotheism, cronyism, institutionalization of corruption, preferential entry in institutions of higher learning, appointment of mediocre pseudo Malays to all the top posts in the civil service institutions, government linked corporations and public universities, Najib announced with great fanfare the 1Malaysia Concept.

Najib fails to realize that we the ethnic Chinese and Indians come from a common stock and that our civilization goes back to some 5,000 years or more. We can smell a rat, long before it arrives. In the same token we understand and comprehend that the 1Malaysia Concept is an “idea” and not a vested interest of the government. That is why we have concluded that the concept is defunct.

If you were to claim that it is otherwise and that we are labouring under a misconceived comprehension, then why have you and neither your misfit of a cousin Hishammuddin, not taken any action on the recent article published in Utusan Malaysia with the caption, “Of noicy Indians and ‘keling’ blood” written by Zaini Hassan.

Would you not consider this article to be seditious?

Or are you now going to state that it is “frivolous” and we are a mature society and we should not be overtly sensitive.

But then, we are fully aware that you and your misfit cousin do not have a contrite heart. You do not have the courage to do your penance just like all your pseudo Malay leaders in the UMNO. Your past acts of 1987 of wielding the kris may be history but such desperate acts were childish in our opinion. Then your cousin Hishammuddin did the same. In our opinion based on our 5,000 years or more of track record of civilization we consider you chaps as being morally defunct and intellectually arrogant and dishonest as it only arises from your ignorance.

You seem to conveniently forget that there is in existence recorded evidence of the Indianized kingdom such as the Gangga Negara or Old Kedah, Srivijava which is approximately 1500 years ago. Historians such as J.V. Sebastian, K.T. Thirunavukkarasu, and A.W. Hamilton have recorded that Temil was the common language of commerce in Malaysia and Indonesia during historical times. In Malacca, and other seaports up to the 19th. century, Malay terminology pertaining to book-keeping and accountancy was still largely in Tamil.

Borrowings from Tamil include such everyday words as:

Tamil

Malay

English

akka

kakak

elder sister

kadai

kedai

shop

kappal

kapal

ship

katikam

ketika

minute

muthirai

mutiara

pearl

nagaram

negara

nation

purva

purba

ancient

raja

raja

king

suzhiyam

sunyi

empty/silence

ezhuchi (uthayam)

udaya

rise

vakai

bagai

kind

puvi

bumi

earth

parithi

Suria

Sun

So where is your supremacy “ Zaini Hassan” as you have only demonstrated how shallow is your new found culture.

Therefore, it is only proper that we make it clear to you pseudo Malays not to live in a state of self denial. You are not a race as you do not have a common stock like the Chinese, Indians or Europeans. You are a cocktail of Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Thai, Burmese, Arabs, English, Dutch, Portuguese, Philippinos, Japanese, Americans and God knows what else.

Najib, it is time that you forget about your 1Malaysia Concept in the interest of attaining the vision 2020. You should immediately dismantle the BTN (National Civics Bureau) in the light of your mentor announcing to the world that UMNO is a racist party and Nazri who is your Minister calling Mahathir a racist. To us they look like fools.

Under these prevailing political scenario it appears that based on Mahathir’s out burst, he has categorically and emphatically confirmed all the allegations and accusations made on the biosphere that not only is UMNO a racist party but the MCA and the MIC.

It is now clear that we cannot have any form of political trust on the Barisan National (BN). The way the political system of the BN and its organizations and institutions function as well as the attitude and conduct of the individual political incumbents of the UMNO, MCA and the MIC clearly demonstrates that they have only time for themselves to exist for their own reasons, of accumulating material under the table, wealth.

We think that our postings on the biosphere have saved us from the sins that are being committed by the BN hegemony. It will go a long way to save us from the inconvenience of anarchy.

And as the inculcation of Najib under the purported 1Malaysia Concept, it is completely incomprehensible, and all that we have to demonstrate to him is that based on our acquired intelligence we shall treat him indifferently as he is grossly incompetent to be our Prime Minister.

As individuals we have our own initiatives and responsibilities as we some times feel that we are useful and get the impression that we are indispensable. But then, being mortals the demise factor is an unavoidable fact of life. Therefore, honour is a vital need of the human soul.

Hence, in our daily life even the common man on the street in his daily interaction, even with his unschooled intelligence does not rigidly apply the common sensual rules to obtain his side of the bargain. For all intent and purpose, flexibility would reign to make an exception to the general rule in respect of his aims and objects, in order to reach an amicable conclusion, when a difficult occasion presents itself.

By analogy, the defamation appeal case of Anwar Ibrahim which came before the court of appeal was more of an opportunity for Anwar to prove the facts that the high court had erred in law and in fact when his case was dismissed.

As observers, we know that a trial in any court is amongst the most complex of all existing human institutions In a civilized world a trial fulfils a variety of important roles for the purpose of maintaining human decorum. The court is expected not to be biased and should carry out its role in such a manner on the premise that it is disinterested in the truth.

If it was otherwise, we would have chaos like in the days of the cave man, with a club-wielding attitude, where we take the onus upon ourselves to settle a dispute based on our hidden secrets, magical powers and imagination, with our opponent. But then for some 5,000 years or more we have moved away from such a horror, fascination and admiration of the acts and conduct of the primeval man and honour the precepts of our modern civilization.

Therefore, as we have followed the traditions of our colonial masters where their law had developed since 1066 and since our Federal Constitution is written in English, our trials have become a kind of an established ritual in the same way and so our society has evolved. The courts are guided by rules to get over today’s crisis and move on to face the crisis by the break of the dawn of tomorrow.

So, the crisis that was before the court of appeal was an appeal of Anwar Ibrahim in his RM100 million defamation suit against Mahathir. The appeal court decided to dismiss Anwar’s appeal on a rather flimsy technical point, that the Memorandum of Appeal(MOA) was filed in the English language and not as required under the rules of the court of appeal in the national language.

What seems to be most amusing is the fact that the “Supreme” law of Malaysia, as of 31.08.1957, that is, the Federal Constitution is written, in English. The National Language Act(NLA) 1963/67 was promulgated subsequently and is subordinate to the Federal Constitution. In Sabah and Sarawak based on the Rajah Brooke’s rule all cause papers filed in court, are only in the English language.

So what is the big façade which has been fabricated by the court of appeal, to dismiss Anwar’s appeal on frivolous grounds which only goes to demonstrate to the society at large the ineptitude of the judges who sat on the appeal and delivered such a shameful decision.

As much as Rules in general have to be obeyed, the Rules of the high court categorically state that in the administering of any of the rules the court or a judge shall have regard to the justice of the particular case and not only to the technical non-compliance of any of the rules. Further the Rules Committee has effectually stipulated that the effect of non-compliance, omission or mistake in practice or procedure of the rules is to be treated as an irregularity and not a nullity.

Therefore, since the constitution being the supreme law of the land is written in the English language, it would be correct to assert that the National Language Act 1963/67 is subordinate to the constitution. As such when Anwar’s solicitors filed the MOA only in the English language, it was a mere irregularity.

The court of appeal should have allowed Anwar, time to file a National language copy of the MOA as it would not have caused any injustice to Mahathir who has siphoned of more than RM100 Billion of our tax payers money during his 22 years as the Prime Minister of Malaysia and for being a racist.

The judges at the court of appeal have failed miserably and have gone against their oath of office. Whilst a trial of any nature which is before the court in a civilized world is an exquisitely subtle method of resolving disputes, the judges of the court have demonstrated to the court of public opinion that they are apolitical, feeble and not independent.

The reasons are pure and simple. All that Anwar has to prove to the court is that Mahathir has maliciously;

uttered words which are untrue;

the words have been published maliciously; and

that special damages have been suffered as a result.

Therefore based on the provisions of the Defamation Act 1957 (Act 286) all that Anwar has to establish is that the “words calculated to disparage the plaintiff(Anwar) in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damages……”

The judges of the court of appeal have failed to uphold the rule of law. They have failed to recognize that fundamental rights are not the same as ordinary rights. And that the NLA cannot supersede the Federal Constitution. They have failed to exercise judicial prudence and flexibility but have instead become apolitical. They have acted in the most ridiculous and insolent manner and have openly demonstrated their tyrannical behavour and feeble character.

Under these circumstances they have dismissed Anwar’s appeal which is meritorious and a genuinely triable issue which raises a number of potentially troubling questions.

Therefore, the only safe conclusion that the court of public opinion can arrive at is that whilst the judges endeavoured to justify or camouflage their decision that Anwar had by filing the MOA in the English language, it constituted an injustice to Mahathir and that it was an abuse of the process of the court, thus making the decision a logical fiction.

By that, the judges have demonstrated that it is easy for them to judge the errors of others whilst the court of public opinion has had no difficulty whatsoever to recognize the judges errors which are hopeless and baseless.

After almost 30 years of indoctrinating the cocktail mixture of a multiple ethnic group and staking an illusive claim that it is a supreme race, the Frankenstein monster has finally lost all sense of direction and has called a spade a spade. Maybe its shelf life is coming to an end. So before the term expires the monster has an urge to go back to its roots.

But, on the contrary when we look back into time, we have to give some form of credit to this ethnic Indian for having had been a good actor and for having had dominated his feeble kris weaving peers for 22 years. Even Adolf Hitler only ruled Germany from 1932 to 1945. Just like Hitler who wanted the world to know that the Germans are an “Aryan” race, this pseudo Malay known as Mahathir artificially created a superfluous supreme Malay race.

Where Hitler failed, this pseudo Malay with other like minded opportunist and racist leaders of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) conspired to maintain their common root, whilst they we not to question Mahathir’s pseudo ethnic status.

What they failed to realize was the fact that since the late 1990’s the world was becoming highly inter-connected and with the internet, at the click of the mouse, it is able to provide any form of information or answer to any form of query, for the purpose of acquiring knowledge.

These old intellectuals presumptuously believed that the current generation would continue to uphold their ancient mentality of respectability and would not question the indoctrination they hoped to instill.

As much as Mahathir despised the British, it would be politically correct to conclude that he must have made a pain stacking study to determine as to how the British gained power over the Indian caste system. During that period, the British held that they had the colonial fantasy of racial supremacy.

Apart from their divide and rule policy they also created the myth of the Indo-Aryan migration to India. This created myth led some Indian nationalists to support the British version of the theory because it gave them the prestige of common descent with the ruling British class.

In the same way, Mahathir diabolically conceived and implemented the Biro Tata Nagara (BTN) civic courses. After this recalcitrant mad man was compelled to ceremoniously step down from his high pedestal office, the other mediocre successors could not ape his diabolically conceived vision of pseudo Malay supremacy.

Lest not forget, that the ethnic Chinese and Indian people were not naïve. Nor did it escape the attention of the leaders and the people of respectability and responsibility in this world at large. They recognized the discriminatory practices but gave recognition to our sovereignty as a nation.

Whilst of late, since the issue of the racial discrimination practices have become a live issue which is beyond our borders, the remarks of foreign leaders do ruffle the feathers of our mediocre political leaders. This is owing to the fact that the Foreign Direct Investors are now voting with their feet.

On the other hand, the young cocktail pseudo Malays have a new sense of an identity. As much as they respect their elders, they want their own space to express their human impulsive urgings or strong desires or tendencies, in their own time.

They do not believe in the ancient preaching. They are more out going, sociable and to some degree pragmatic in their vision and their station of life and disrespect the demand of blind loyalty. They are devastated by the mounting allegations that they are unable to stand on their own two feet and are accused of being dependent on clutters to eke a living.

As much as horses do make a landscape to be beautiful, these modern cocktail of pseudo Malays, envision that freedom to them is a personal and lonely battle when their every movement is to be dictated and premised on some misguided interpretation of the ancient wisdom which has to be enforced on their modern lives. They want their mixed parentage cultures and faiths to meet and interpenetrate.

As a result of their observations of how other faiths and cultures live freely, these young pseudo Malays have come to the realization that they have to break free from the fictitious web being spun by the powers that be. They realize that there will be no lasting peace unless they learn not only to tolerate and to respect the religious beliefs of others, as their own.

This situation gave rise to some young courageous pseudo Malays to openly voice out the racist policies propagated through the BTN. Thereafter there arose a flood of a partisan movement on the alternate media where one thing led to another and the voice of reason demanded that a ban should be placed on the attendance of the BTN courses. This was first mooted by the Selangor State Government and followed by Penang.

In the ensuing snowballed scenario of events Mahathir the great recalcitrant being true to his colours opened his sewage gap. He declared that the BTN was still useful, as it was installing patriotism. This led to another misfit Nazri labeling Mahathir as a racist.

Then, Mahathir lambasted Nazri for being a member of a one race party, that is, UMNO which is a racist party. The response from Muhyiddin is that the opposition is using its strategy to discredit the government.

From what is unfurling on a day to day basis, it is apparent that the government of Najib has a lot of its own fears which it wants to keep under a tight rap. Through the moribund 1Malaysia concept the government endeavoured to gain the confidence of the people. But now it seems to have a fear within its own ranks, that it is not working.

Najib’s government has to realize that by the laws of nature nothing is perfect. So in the conduct of human affairs there can be no blind obedience. It appears that Najib is no longer able to distinguish the tree from the forest. As now even Najib’s own pseudo Malays tend to categorically and emphatically state that their life has not progressed as UMNO claims. In reality, only a chosen few have achieved a life which is beyond their dreams. The masses have been left to rot.

There UMNO’s education and indoctrination through the BTN would fall within the purview of what John Maynard Keynes said on education, that is, “ the inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent.”

This is owing to UMNO’s own self inflicted death to its pseudo Malay egoism and pride and the people have become deaf as they know that knowledge is limited but on the other hand their imagination encircles the world.